get_sitemap

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the shape of returned data, but with an output schema present that is largely duplicate information rather than new behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler and the resource named first. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style omits an explicit verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently against its many siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both required parameters (site_url, sitemap_url) are bare strings with no descriptions. The description does not say what either parameter accepts or the relationship between them, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource ('one sitemap') and enumerates the specific payload it returns (submission/download dates, errors, warnings, per-type URL counts). 'One sitemap' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_sitemaps, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this tool versus list_sitemaps, submit_sitemap, or delete_sitemap, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a verified property). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.